The United Kingdom has confirmed that it is developing a replacement UK sovereign nuclear warhead for its Trident missiles.
The Ministry of Defence says in the ‘Defence Nuclear Enterprise Command Paper’ that “Replacing the UK’s warhead will ensure the UK’s deterrent remains cutting-edge, safe and effective”.
In the paper released today, they state:
“The UK committed to replacing our sovereign warhead in parliament in February 2021. Using modern and innovative developments in science, engineering, manufacturing and production at AWE, we will ensure the UK maintains an effective deterrent for as long as required.
The Replacement Warhead Programme has been designated the A21/Mk7 (also known as Astraea). It is being delivered in parallel with the US W93/Mk7 warhead and each nation is developing a sovereign design. This will be the first UK warhead developed in an era where we no longer test our weapons underground, upholding our voluntary moratorium on nuclear weapon test explosions.
This is possible because of the long history of technical expertise and extensive investment in UK modelling and simulation, supercomputing, materials science, shock and laser physics at AWE. Replacing the UK warhead is a long-term programme, driving modernisation and construction at AWE, HMNB Clyde and the hydrodynamics facility at EPURE, in France.”
For those unaware, the Trident II D5 missile is manufactured in the US. It comprises the missiles and supporting systems fitted on the submarine as well as training and shore
support equipment.
Under the agreement with the United States, the UK accesses a shared missile pool.
Missiles are loaded into our submarines in Kings Bay, Georgia, US. The UK-manufactured
warheads are mated to the missiles at HMNB Clyde.
How will it be tested?
Well, the paper covers that too, stating:
“We have developed unique and world‑leading technology to validate the UK’s warhead stockpile. The Orion laser helps our physicists and scientists research the physics of those extreme temperatures and pressures found in a nuclear explosion to better understand the safety, reliability and performance of nuclear warheads. Orion is used collaboratively with UK academia and US teams in their National Laboratories.
Supercomputing is also a crucial capability, enabling simulations that allow us to develop a safe, assured warhead without detonation. AWE has recently commissioned a supercomputer named Valiant, one of the most powerful computers in the UK, to validate the design, performance and reliability of our nuclear warhead. These facilities will be used to bring our next warhead into service, upholding our voluntary moratorium on nuclear weapons test explosions.”
What in Black Mesa is that in the banner image? Is it a warhead x-ray for quality control?
It’s a bomb innit mate, best keep up at the back
I’m looking along the lines of the chamber equipment, but thank you for your comment.
I think it’s a chamber for laser detonation testing.
It’s the laser from Goldfinger they have been diligently working since 1964 to determine why Mr Bond didn’t die.
More like Goldmember.
The Orion Laser Facility in fact.
Thanks for an actual answer. I skipped the last part. Oops.
Is that so? Thanks. I’m well aware of what and where it is but never seen inside.
Yes it is, in fact it’s just up the road from you 🥴
I know, I’ve “visited” on several occasions.
Apparently my dad worked on the anti-vibration platforms for the Orion facility and the original designers put the thing right next to a busy road so he had to deal with the additional problem of vibration from lorries going past.
Yep, for such a key part of AWE it’s on the perimeter. The really interesting bit is the A90 area in the inner area, with several fences around it. I’d love to be a fly on the wall in there.
Coll it’s a frontline attack De longhi expresso coffee machine every Whitehall office has 1
The only piece of equipment the politicians won’t allow to be fitted but not with.
And I grew up too believe that we as a nation were Tea drinkers there’s probably more Espresso machines in the civil service than Trident warheads
It’s the Orion Targeting chamber at Aldermaston, a twin lens neodymium laser. The Target can be tested up to 5000 kelvins which is the heat of a thermonuclear reaction.
Quite a beast to put it mildly.
Aldernaston has had a lot of infrastructure upgrades, and still ongoing. And Burghfield even more so to replace the Gravel Gerties.
Another destination of much of our budget for posters who keep asking “where does the money go”
SPS factor through the roof as Aldermaston has a Neo dymium laser with that power it must be one that has had the building built around it and placed away from other buildings
It’s the inside of the target chamber of the Orion Laser at AWE. It’s a BIG neodymium pulsed power laser that the physics nerds use to do plasma state experiments in. It won’t ignite nuclear fusion like the LLNL NIF laser can, but it will do similar stuff. Think of it as NIF’s little brother. IT uses neodymium-doped glass as a power amplification medium along with very precisely-timed flashlamps, and those glass sheets, about 2″ thick if I remember correctly, were cast-offs from NIF. Orion has got about 8 short pulse high power beamlines and several longer pulse, lower power beamlines. All those laser beams converge and are minutely focused down to a point in the middle of that chamber in the pic, where all the energy converges on a target, turning it into a plasma with huge violence.
Makes you wonder how the Orcs can claim to have a credible nuclear capability without testing.i can’t see them having super computers and lasers.
If they carry on using the exact same designs that they previously tested then they don’t need them.
And yet when I question the efficacy of Trident without successful testing, it’s trolling or bot posting. 🤔
Trident is not a warhead.
Trident is tested occasionally.
I am aware of that, it is currently our only means of warhead delivery. It is tested very occasionally and has failed the last two. Do you see the problem now?
Our test failed, when was the last US fail?
Besides, the conversation was warheads – which we cannot test.
You can to a point, it’s called sub critical testing. Also the physics are pretty well understood now.
I wonder if they are still conducting underground testing in failgrant disregard of treatises
Might it not be an idea to procure a small number of warheads for delivery per RN and RAF stand off systems as a second line of Defence as per the French Armed Forces? Could the Tridents weapons missiles be subject to an attack on their guidance systems or the subs themselves be tracked by the Russians making them vulnerable to a pre-emptive strike in the event of threatening hostilities?
Absolutely, we are the only major nuclear power not to have tactical nukes. In a world where conflict is likely this has to be part of our deterrence posture and is much more important than things like expanding the army or light patrol frigates.
I would rather see the money used for an enhanced conventional strike with large numbers of cruise missiles much like Japan is investing in. Tactical nukes are a bad idea.
The air launched French nuclear missile has a yield of 300 kilotons, 20 times that of the Hiroshima bomb. It is not a tactical nuke per the generally accepted definition of < 50 kilotons.
I do agree that expanding our conventional cruise missile capability is more important than trying to add a second nuclear weapon system. Increasing range to match Tomahawk and including a surface/ ship launched version should leave us less dependent on our handful of SSNs 2028 seems still to be the IOC date for the land strike missile element of the Franco British FC/ASW programme.
I would agree except that the whole Russian phylosophe revolves around using a tactical nuke believing there is no way the US will even use a tactical nuke in reply for Europe let alone any of us responding with a Strategic one. At least if you have even a minimal capabability that gamble might be negated at source. With the mad rhetoric from everyone’s mad grandad in the Kremlin I am increasingly less convinced he won’t escalate in any way he thinks of upon waking up if he feels the West won’t respond in kind.
In a world where conflict is likely, you think the best use of limited funding would be on low-yield nuclear weapons that we would be highly reluctant to use, instead of conventional assets that could actually fight day one?
If you’re going to apply that logic, we might as well bin off the army entirely…
We don’t need tactical nukes, they are unnecessary in respect of our deterrent stance.
Trident use’s star maps to navigate, it can’t be knocked out. The Russians have a very little chance of finding much less tracking a trident sub. Nuclear cruise missiles are much more vulnerable. The French use theirs for a specific purpose. It’s to send a message to an aggressor short of an all out strike. It’s an expensive system with very limited use.
With the recent Trident test failure, the stress placed on running the nuclear deterrent with 3 boats and the possibility (albeit remote) that the deployed SSBN is found we really should return to having an RAF nuclear capability.
German F35s will be able to drop a bomb with nuclear warhead, we should acquire the bombs to be able to launch our warheads from our jets as well.
Two baskets rather than one.
The Germans looked at putting B61 on typhoon but it could not be done, so we would have to buy F35A to use it.
It can be done. If the B61 and similar systems can be carried by F/A-18s, F-15s, F-16s and Rafale, the Typhoon can also. It’s a matter of political will, not engineering. After all, we’re firing off HARMS and Storm Shadows off Russian jets, so anything that only requires engineering is possible.
It’s a play of engineering, finance and politics that mean it can’t be done.
That’s not quite true. Eurofighter wrote up the plan for modifying and testing a nuclear capable Typhoon. However, Germany has to use a donated US weapon. Which means the installation needs to be approved firstly by Congress and then go through the integration process.
The US came back with a price for the integration. To say the cost was high is an understatement. Hence Germany’s interest in buying FA-18E/F, as that is already cleared for the weapon.
Realizing that the Hornet did not give any distinct advantages over Tornado. Especially for penetrating densely layered air defences. They announced the purchase of the F35A (much to France’s dismay!).
Yes so B61 on typhoon can’t be done.
“Can’t” is the incorrect word here. Due to the cost, it won’t be done, as its technically doable!
I would buy F35A for the RAF regardless of the tactical Nuclear strile capability it brings- that is however an additional benefit.
Although I know it could impact on Tempest development- it may be time to decide how we want to operate now and not count on future chickens.
Just consider the delays to Ajax as an example of what could go wrong.
A B61 is an American weapon with PAL safeties built in. To get it to work there are a lot of American systems and modifications that nobody uses except for nuclear weapon to integrate into an aircraft.
The UK now with Trident and in the past with W177 Buckets of Sunshine doesn’t use PAL. It’s another unknown to add into the NATO and UK nuclear deterrent and brinksmanship mix for an aggressor to consider and factor in.
But what would we be dropping them on..German soil, Polish soil…or are we suggesting that the nuclear armed F35s penetrate deep into Russia ?
The reality is western tactical nuclear weapons were a backstop against. The soviet hordes..because for most of the Cold War the assumption was western conventional forces would loss…..the reality is now western conventional forces would not loss..so our need for nuclear weapons is on deterrent based…preventing Putin using tactical nuclear weapons…the best deterrent is a strategic responce…a tactical nuclear weapon is never going to deter Putin from using tactical nucs first….if he know the responce will be strategic and involve the destruction of the Russian state he’s going to be a lot more deterred….
If we engage in Russias escalation game we will end up in a nuclear war…if we play our own game of strategic deterrent and “ you use nucs your nation dies’ we should hopefully stave it off.
That’s indeed the rational take, I’m just becoming increasingly of the mind that rational thought from the Kremlin is dwindling fast. I mean where do go when a madman is warned about an intending terrorist attack, claims the warning is just an attempt at destabilising Russian society, blames it on Ukraine despite all the evidence is ISIS (because it looks weak and incompetent) threatens retaliation on Ukraine and blames the West claiming the warning proves that they were involved in organising it with our mates Islamic State. Let’s hope he’s not quite that mad but even so manipulating things to this extent worryingly using re edited footage with likely Ai created content hardly bodes well.
I actually like the French reasons for keeping air launched Tactical weapons. It causes an opportunity for an enemy to pause before full on Strategic exchange.
Hence its name “Force de dissuasion”. In effect any enemy has an opportunity to pause and think. I have launched a Tactical nuc at them and they responded in kind, they are resolved in their actions. So do I stop, keep it at this level or escalate to Strategic.
The simple truth is that due to the actual size and weight of a modern Thermonuclear warhead it isn’t that expensive to develop a tactical nuclear capability.
Let’s be real. In a shooting war, I am sure the Typhoon would be cleared quickly by the US to deploy the B61.
In reality, the UK would be much better served by having the ability to penitrate enemy airspace with conventional cruise missiles.
It would need to be modded for PAL.
Things said for home consumption and to ‘prove’ that it was Ukraine all the time are not necessarily what the Kremlin actually thinks…
It’s all to do with proportionality. Tactical nukes during the Cold War were primarily going to be used against “Soviet” follow up forces and their marshaling areas. Sadly this would have been on East German, Polish and Czech soil.
Today, that threat from the Soviet hordes has disappeared. However, there is still a requirement for a singular nuclear weapon. This is to give a proportional response to the use of a singular nuclear, biological or chemical attack on the UK or its protectorates.
The Government of the time decided to retire the WE177 and its subsequent replacement. Instead coming up with the singularly stupid idea of using Trident, mounting a singular warhead.
This weapon combination is supposed to be used against a rogue Nation or group. However, there is a great likelihood that the launch path may come close to or cross over Russian or Chinese territory. Which means they will have detected and tracked the missile. Its forces will be placed on the highest of alerts. They will have a finite amount of time (less than 3 minutes) to decide if the weapon is going to fall on their territory or not! They won’t be able to tell if the Trident is carrying 12 or 1 re-entry vehicle, until the payload has discharged.
With a cruise missile carrying a nuke. It will more than likely be carrying only the one warhead. This will remove some of the uncertainty and anxiety that a Trident launch will cause!
Hi Davey I don’t have an issue fine tuning the strategic deterrent…I think the French have a good balance with a two pronged strategic approach…their air launched strategy weapons have alway been in place to allow that smaller strategic response…my issue is with tactical weapons…I think its to easy to let beast out of the cage if you think a tactical first use will engender a tactical response..if you know your always going to get a strategic response to any use of nuclear weapons your going to think twice…the French air launched strategic weapons were designed as a very last step before France unloads its whole nuclear deterrent on you…the French two step strategic response I was basically put in place for a situation where the Soviet army was at the boarders of France and were just about to cross…France would hit the USSR with a sign strategic strike as a final warning…crossing the boarder would have been a full strike ( France has always been pretty clear that an invasion of France would trigger a strategic response)..so I have little problem with the UK having an air launched 100-300kt yield nuclear cruise missile as an extra part of our strategic deterrence…
…I have a big issue with low yield tactical weapons….it would enable the Russians to use their ladder of escalation and we don’t want to do that…at present Uk doctrine basically means Russia cannot use its escalation ladder doctrine against the UK..because we cannot be forced into it…the UK ladder is only two steps..non nuclear or we all die..that’s a deterrent.
All of the above 👍
Having 3 completely different nuclear armed states within Europe and NATO as a whole is a massive deterrent for an aggressor. The responses from each and the systems in use are all completely different and a massive headache for anyone trying to wargame a limited escalation and its response.
Whilst it may be possible to eliminate a response from one user it’s not going to be possible for all three at the same time.
Its one of the things that winds ivan up and why ivan is always throwing the “British Bastards” rhetoric around.
I deed, and why being both tied into NATO and yet at the same time each having a completely independent decision making process and essentially opaque decision tree is so important…
there is also another factor…Russia would literally have no way of knowing which country the strategic response was from and as it would be functionally destroyed as a state by the strategic response of any of the three NATO nuclear powers ( even the lowest ever know operational UK deterrent of 40 warheads would destroy the Russian state) it would be forced to counter force the whole of NATO…( even if say The US tried to say it was not them Russia would still strike as it would not leave the US intact when it was destroyed) which means that once one of the powers with a strategic arsenal attacks. With that arsenal every power with a strategic arsenal attacks..the contagion would be very swift and unstoppable…no nation will accept a strategic counterforce strike and will always strike back at all enemy powers.
I agree, the use of a tactical low yield nuke today is pretty pointless. It creates more problems than it tries to solve. Though I bet Russia would still consider it, knowing they don’t give a toss over their soldiers lives!
The French ASMP with a dialable yield warhead to me seems the right way to go. As you say it provides a two pronged and layered response. But can also be used proportionally against rogue players.
What does surprise me, is that in this day and age. The US B61 is still a freefall bomb? Which means the aircraft deploying it must either overfly the target or use a toss technique to lob it towards the target. Which depending on the target’s protective air defences, could place the aircraft in very great danger. Why it has never been modified with the JDAM kit I don’t know. As this would give the aircraft a means of standing-off the target, so inherently safer for the aircraft. Perhaps it is due to the pilot needing to positively identify the target, before deploying the weapon?
“I agree, the use of a tactical low yield nuke today is pretty pointless”
The Russians would vehemently disagree as the concept of “Escalate to De-escalate” is a major part of their doctrine. As I’ve stated in an earlier post, Russian threshold for tactical nuke use is much lower than many is the west believe. It also remains as much a political tool as it would be operationally. The text below taken from a Financial Times article just a couple of weeks ago explains their mindset. Nuclear blackmail essentially.
“Under this strategy a tactical weapon could be used to try to prevent Russia from becoming embroiled in a sprawling war, particularly one in which the US might intervene. Using what it calls “fear inducement”, Moscow would seek to end the conflict on its own terms by shocking the country’s adversary with the early use of a small nuclear weapon — or securing a settlement through the threat to do so.
“They talk about ‘soberising’ their adversaries — knocking them out of the drunkenness of their early victories by introducing nuclear weapons,” said Alberque. “The best way that they think they can do that is to use what they call a lower ‘dosage’ of nuclear weapons at a much lower level of combat to prevent escalation.”
Yes it’s a bit of a mental thought process. I did read a paper on the Russian escalation ladder..I cannot remember the exact numbers but thinking back they have something like five levels of conflict escalation below war, a number of formal war levels of escalation and around 4 levels of nuclear escalation.
“preventing Putin using tactical nuclear weapons…the best deterrent is a strategic responce”
Is it though?
Putin knows that the US wouldn’t respond to a tactical nuke used for example, in a remote area with minimal casualties, with a strategic weapon and so by using the tactical nuke, Russia knows it gets to control escalation and the west would have no way to respond proportionately. It’s been long suspected that Russia has a low threshold for tactical nuke employment and this has pretty much been confirmed by documents obtained by the west at the end of the cold war. The confirmation that Russia would conceivably use a tactical nuke and what is referred to as “Escalation Dominance” in a conflict with the nato was the main motivation behind the US renewed focus on it’s own tactical nukes over the last few years.
This is the big issue net..Russia will use its ladder of escalation if it thinks it can get away with it…so if it thinks it will only get a tactical response back it will go tactical if it thinks it would be of benefit…if on the other hand it knows that a nation like the UK will not play the “game of nuclear escalation or follow its ladder of escalation ” it creates a massive hole in Russias decision making…if it knows the Uk will respond to a Nuclear attack ( tactical ) with a strategic response because that’s its only option..then Russia will have to think very very hard..as it would know that to go nuclear is essentially turning the key of mutual destruction…
Russian nuclear doctrine is not stable so we have to make ours one of assured overwhelming response and mutual destruction …otherwise we will essentially normalise Russias view that nuclear weapons are actually usable weapons of war.
I take your point but how credible is the threat that the UK would commit national suicide by responding with strategic weapons to a tactical nuke that for argument sake is targeted at a remote area in one of the Baltic states or somewhere near UK interest? I don’t think anyone believes that likely but that’s just my opinion.
On a related note, it seems that during the summer of 2022 when RU forces were in mass retreat in Ukraine, US intelligence believed that there was a credible threat of the use of a Russian tactical nuke if their lines had collapse completely and the loss of Crimea was at risk.
Hi net to be brutally honest I don’t believe the NATO nuclear powers would respond with nuclear weapons unless the strike was against them or their national forces….it’s to my mind ( and probably Putins) one of the likely fracture lines in NATO…I don’t think the U.S, UK or France would go nuclear over a tactical strike on the fringes of NATO…they would only likely go nuclear if they were hit or if NATO was in a state of collapse….But the ambiguity is there as a deterrent….but let’s be honest Strategic deterrents are all about keeping the NATO that owns the deterrent safe from nuclear attack…it’s why it’s important that the Nuclear powers have reasonable levels of forces at the NATO front line…Putin may just risk a tactical nuc against a front with troops from a none nuclear power..he’s not likely to risk doing the same with large UK, US or french formations.
Could we link up with the germans, swedes and poles. We provide the warheads, if they provide funding and the cruise missile carrier. As soon as it gets started the french will likely jump to help because of the fomo.
Just a follow up from our discussion yesterday about Russia’s mindset when it comes to tactical nukes. See my response above to DaveyB regarding their stated doctrine.
It’s highly likely NATO would respond to a Russian tactical nuclear weapon with a massive conventional strike of cruise missiles.
This is actually far more effective than a tactical nuclear weapon . Other than as a political statement tactical nuclear weapons are not that useful now we have precision strike weapons.
Using a tactical nuclear weapon would likely politically backfire as even morally fluid countries like India and China would be repulsed by it.
I broadly agree with you but what if after being hit by a massive conventional nato responce, Russia decides to escalate with even more tactical nukes, while carefully avoiding at least in their view, crossing the strategic weapon threshold. Does the west have the political will to watch more and more of it’s territory and people get nuked and continue to respond conventionally, or do they respond in kind and make it clear that two can play that game. IMO having the ability to respond with your own tactical nukes takes away whatever perceived escalation advantage Russia may have believed it had.
If he keeps launching tactical nukes NATO keeps launch conventional attacks sinking his submarines and aircraft and hurting his missiles and blinding his radar until they can launch a successful counter force attack with trident against Russia remaining land based weapons ICBM’s. A tactical nuke vs nato conventional escalation won’t work well for Russia.
EMP how would we retaliate?
The US has conventional EMP cruise missiles. If the Russian set of a high altitude nuclear weapon we would probably respond the same was as with any other nuclear weapon. I’m guessing a large conventional cruise missile strike. Certainly not a tactical nuclear weapon.
The thing is the west could only respond strategically..there would be little point using tactical nucs on a front that would likely be on NATO territory…we would just be irradiating more of the nations being fought over…is a Baltic state even going to want more tactical nuclear weapons dropped near it…so if Putin went tonto and kept dropping tactical nuclear weapons the only viable response would be a strategic counterforce strike….it may be graduated but it would still be strategic not tactical….
Tactical nuclear weapons are just a bit bonkers…even Israel who for a long time only had what were classed as tactical nuclear weapons never planned to use them tactically ( they did not consider dropping them on their own territory in defence as sane) their plan has alway been to use their tactical nuclear weapons strategically if they were going to to be overun..by destroying the major Cities of the Arab states that were attacking them…the Samson option.
Yes, if you shoot an Iskandar missile with a nuclear warhead at a NATO airbase near a city then what’s the difference in shooting a SRBM at a city?
The other side will likely see no difference and respond in kind, however now you looking at the other side with all of its nuclear weapons intact and a heads up preparing a full counter force strike against you that will give you only a few minutes to respond assuming they don’t have something tucked up their sleeve to blind you.
Russia lacks the sensors of NATO members. In a nuclear exchange with NATO where NATO fires first Russia is at a major disadvantage. Those deployed tactical nukes count against it in arms treaties as well meaning it has less strategic weapons that it can use to try and take out US weapons.
Tactical nukes are just a terrible idea.
One Tactical nuke from Putin and 1 EMP burst would render all our highly sophisticated equipment unless
That’s absolute nonsense, The military has been equipped with EMP in mind for deacdes. It’s nothing new.
I know it’s nothing new I did enough NBCD exercises for quite a few years And EMP was always a question Jim
Thats why on engineering rounds you make sure those wire mesh covered rubber door seals are in place and earthed on equipment cabinets. Why earth straps are in place. Surge protection devices are working in those boxes where cables pass into electronic compartments…
I am going to start doing 64 point equipment checklists next!
Vulcanised rubber shock mounts beneath motors
That takes me back
Agreed .
Just with conventional strikes It would be open season on everything and everyone with a Russian flag on it. ivans sea going forces both military and civilian will all be reefs. Its aircraft wouldn’t last long. Conventional forces or mercs will be hit inside and outside of the NATO theatre and destroyed. Tantris in Syria would be gone. The Med and Black Sea would join the Baltic as being another NATO boating lake.
Economic sanction will shut off everything and you could expect the banking system to collapse be that by removing SWIFT , market forces or by cyber. Mining of sea ports, cutting of infrastructure links, power grid, oil and gas production would all go. It would get very very cold and dark very very quickly.
I honestly think china would loss it’s shit and completely pull support from Russia if it used nuclear weapons…the Chinese’s are pretty happy to use almost all domains and types of warfare..but nuclear is their big bugbear…suffering is intrinsically linked to their cultural belief system ( they think the Chinese people must suffer to reunite before being sundered and suffer again..but complete destruction is anathema to them). It’s the only one of the big five that has a clear no first use policy and does not even mate it’s land based ICBMs with warheads….The Chinese are probably the most stable of the none western nuclear powers in regards to use of nuclear weapons.
Agree. I think with proliferation of nuclear weapons by China, Russia, North Korea and Iran it would be sensible to have a range of nuclear responses including low yield small tactical warheads as well as bomb and cruise missiles delivered systems
tridents don’t rely on outside guidance, they use INS and starlight navigation for exactly the reason you said- so they can’t be jammed.
We don’t need the Americans to develop a project like this.
If it hadn’t been for GB there wouldn’t have been a manhatten project that produced the bomb by July 45
The worlds supply of heavy water was hidden at a secret location in the UK during ww2 apparently.
And Kirk Douglas stopped the Nazi’s at Telemark although yes but not Kirk , so after the ferry went down Britian had the only supply and storage of Heavy water nice too know that Daniele
Which, like so much else from radar to jet engines to early stealth RAM we promplty handed over to the US.
And Clemant Attlee handed a Jet engine over to Mr j starlin and others gave him our Atomic secrets
And we gave up our own satellite launch capability, and the list is endless.
Sad it’s in our national psyche to endlessly belittle and mutilate ourselves. Look at some of the comments here.
ISLE OF Wight was our Cape Kennedy and prospero which is still up there was our first British Satellite I think everything was pulled in the early 70ts alot of concrete still remains at the south west of the Island
While I’m happy that we’re doing this, I’d be happier if we were augmenting our sovereign ability to design and produce reactors.
My understanding is that we’re currently reliant on the US to feed us information that’s just a bit behind their own cutting edge, for us to then develop our next iteration of reactor power plants for subs. To me, that sucks.
There is growing real interest in commercial compact nuclear reactors for various applications, which would be a viable lucrative outgrowth from increased reactor design investment, yet government isn’t interested. I’d rather buy OTS warheads from the US and be not able to develop our own nuclear power than the other way around.
Rolls Royce designs the reactors. The US shared designs with RR that’s all. Now PWR 3 is done we probably won’t need another design, the technology is pretty mature.
We are actually doing both but separately as there are fundamental differences between a military submarine reactor and a civilian SMNR.
And I assure you we are not reliant on the US for 2nd rate tech, it’s an equal partnership started in 1958 and is very much 2 way. We have our strengths and they have theirs and ideas are bounced around all the time.
Would it surprise you to know that when we exploded our 1st true Thermonuclear Bomb (Grapple Y) the US found that some our tech was more efficient than theirs. Try reading Teller’s autobiography, he was very complimentary about our finished design as it used far less precious U-235 than their comparable ones.
It’s a strange situation but as we have fewer resources than the US it tends to make us be a bit more imaginative.
Part of the quid pro quo for US nuclear tech in the past was that the US got UK quietening tech and sonar tech for its sub fleet that it didn’t have at the time.
When the walker spy ring was found it wasn’t just the USN affected. A lot of the baseline tech development came from the UK and affected UK systems.
I am very glad to be found incorrect- although the source of my previous information was American, so do with that as you like!
I appreciate there are differences in design between sub reactors and power reactors- I would imagine that having the industrial/safety experience, supply chains, established facilities, experienced workforce for one would make doing the other easier though? Or are they just so fundamentally different?
The UKs reactor designs have been independent and indigenous from the beginning. There was a sharing deal regarding the first generation of submarine reactors, but commercial reactor designs deviated quite substantially from the beginning. The US pursued the PWR design path (hence the submarine deal) while CEGB chose the Magnox and later AGR types.
Ah, I didn’t realise- so our civilian power reactor designs weren’t suitable for submarines, so we shared some US tech for the PWR?
Have we tested our nuclear deterrent since the second failure in a row a few weeks back? I would’ve thought getting the missile part to function properly is the priority over upgrading an already working warhead?
Come on both missiles launched from the boat! One went off course and was terminated by the RSO so not the RNs fault was it ? Second one cleared the boat so was launched and for a second time the missile failed! Supposedly the test kit which was attached interfered with it.
I know the missile isn’t the royal navy’s fault but regardless it should be tested until it works. How do we know the U.S isn’t giving us their dodgy missiles from the stockpile? Wouldn’t be the first time we got shafted by them…
As they are in a common stockpile and picked at random how would the US know if the missile was a dud? They are just as concerned about the failures as we are and will be turning the pile upside down to find the cause.
Yes thats the real issue is it not..
I understand Amercian testing (at least since the first failure) has proven successful which of course proves the ongoing capability of the tech.
However it does beg the question:
Have we just been unlucky in the choice or…is there indeed something more underhand going on.
Seems highly unlikely we will design one independently of the US. Seems way more likely we will buy a US design and manufactured warhead and tweak and call it British designed. I guess we will see.
We can’t buy US, in doing that we lose independent control over the deterrant. It’s the reason ever since day one of Polaris we have equipped a UK designed and built warhead.
Polaris and trident were both US designed? It’s why we are able to maintain a common stockpile with the US.
Non- Proliferation Treaty and McMahon Act stop this from happening.
NPT Article 1
Each nuclear-weapons state (NWS) undertakes not to transfer, to any recipient, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices, and not to assist any non-nuclear weapon state to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices.
The to any recipient bit is the kicker. Even if you have the tech and the capability you cannot ask or receive help from another nation on getting weapons.
Nations cannot give or sell nuclear warheads to other nations..the NPT will not allow it. If you want a nuclear warhead you need to design it yourself.
So how did we get trident?
The warheads are British build and designed..we purchased the missiles which are a delivery system for the warheads…you can sell a missile, aircraft ect..you cannot sell the actual nuclear warhead/nuclear device.
That’s interesting. The whole history of the British nuclear program was it was a failure. We couldn’t get fission and so instead scammed the US with a larger atomic bomb, which resulted in them agreeing to see us their warheads.
The British actually started its nuclear research in 41 before the U.S. and UK merged their research into the Manhattan project in 43..which was a “joint U.S. and UK project along with canada” the US then actually stabbed the UK And Canada in the back at the end of the war ( they did that a fair bit to the Uk between 46 and 56..as they saw the UK system as not an enemy, but as an adversarial competitor as much as an ally) with the 46 atomic energy act..which basically but in barrier to the UK and Canada accessing a lot of the benfits of the the Manhattan project…
the UK restarted its independent weapons programme in 1947..and successfully detonated its first fission bomb in 52, Britain’s first operation fission bomb was the MK1 atomic bomb was in service for 56 a 12kt bomb of which 58 were made…in 54 the UK moved to develop a thermonuclear bomb ( the U.S. detonated theirs in 52 and the Soviets did theirs in 54)..53 the UK detonated its first thermonuclear bomb in 57….
in 58 the U.S. government and Uk government agreed to restart a shared programme..but the first UK operational thermo nuclear weapon was operational in 59 and it was an entirely a UK designed weapon called green grass ( Mk1 hydrogen bomb) at 400kT.
the next weapon was a shared US UK weapon the Mk2 red snow ( or the US MK28 bomb ), this took over from the British designed mk1 hydrogen bomb in 62….in 66 the Uk used another U.S. weapon the we 177…from 68 the NPT was signed and nations were no longer allowed to supply each other with nuclear weapons..
The 68-9 Polaris programme saw a Uk warhead that was a redesigned We177 freefall bomb warhead….this was later replaced by a modified UK designed warhead from the work that had been undertaken from a joint UK U.S. program in the 60s…called sky bolt…the latest UK warhead is a Uk designed and built warhead called Holbrook ( it’s not know where it came from but some say the UK looked at some US designs ( we are allowed to under treaty..the US just cannot sell us warheads…
Yeah the US locking us out of the Manhattan project out was shocking, but our own program that we started afterwards didn’t deliver, and it was decided to scam the americans by detonating 2 bombs on top of each other to make it look like we had acheived fusion in the mega ton range when we hadn’t and then to buy their tech, as they openned up once they thought we could make it also without them and it was then just about making money.
Although to be fair the cambridge spies semi justified the US reluctance to share.
Hi Steve not sure about that but “orange herald” was the a British test bomb and the largest single stage nuclear blast ever at 800Kt well beyond any single stage fusion bomb ever created by any other nation…this was a booster fusion bomb…the UK also succeed with producing a number of megaton range thermonuclear weapons grapple x at 1.8megatons, grapple y at 3 megatons….all the tests after that, 1958 were tests around removing any risk of pre detonation ( causes from near by nuclear blasts).
So British test bombs were not anaemic with the standard British build operation hydrogen at 400kt…well within the Normal range of most operational strategic weapons. The first US operational hydrogen bomb the Mk17 had a 1 MT yield..they UK kept its yield at 400kt as a way to manage fuel usage for bomb manufacturing.
All of the above was encapsulated in this newspaper article from today:
UK’s nuclear industry to get £200m boost amid defence concerns, Rishi Sunak announces
He was on the tv talking about it. I thought he glitched as he kept repeating the same phrases over and over
Too many armchair warriors on here.
So a warhead that won’t work on a rocket that fails in a submarine without crew.
I wondered where all the money was going.
This comes out of the defence budget which is not fair.
Since when will the “warhead not work”?
The Submarine has crew.
It’s a Missile and on occasion they fail.
This is your 4th post in a year, will you every say anything positive or is your aim to basically find fault and moan?
More funds taken from the conventional budget. I hate nuclear weapons but they cannot be uninvented and in this increasingly dangerous world they are a necessary evil . But it is time we went back to the nuclear deterrent being largely funded from a seperate pot of money( before the disastrous Cameron/Osborne leadership) and not make a substantial hole in the conventional budget. We need both, wake up before it is too late.
Is there any new, external money from HM treasury for a totally new warhead with a larger number manufacturered? There were rumours around defence in 2021 that the stockpile would be grown to about 260 warheads, and that the estimate for a new warhead design alone ( NOT build figures ) was £20 BILLION …. so where is the money to be found for this ???
( the French system is funded separately and I believe the US nuclear warhead design falls under the US Department of Energy remit NOT fully DoD)
We secretly fill the missiles with old clock parts. It’s far cheaper and if they’re ever fired in anger it’s not going to matter anyway…..
There’s an article in the FT this morning which looks at the SSBN programme more critically. Various insiders say the costs have completely mushroomed and are out of control. One thinktank estimates the real cost of the nuclear programme at £140bn. another at £170 bn.
These are astronomical sums. HMG has a figure IIRC of £54bn over the next ten years. That is a massive proportion of the equipment each year. Add up – these figures from memory – RAF combat air £1.7bn, RN surface vessels £2.2bn, army equipment £1.8bn, RAF support aircraft £1.6 bn, helicopters £1 bn and you get an annual equipment split per year of something like:
Nuclear programme: £5.4 bn (and continually increasing)
Army, Navy and Air force budgets: £8.2 bn
Basically 40% of our frontline equipment budget is going on this nuclear programme. If you add in the various other equipment budgets, such as Special Weapons etc., the nuclear proportion falls to about a third.
The reason we don’t have enough combat aircraft, RN escorts, armoured fighting vehicles, etc, etc. and are always looking to do them on the cheap, is that our real defence budget, once you take out civil service pensions, defence contributions to intelligence etc and the nuclear programme, I doubt our defence expenditure is much over 1% of GDP, probably something like 1.2-1.3%.
The whole nuclear programme is costing the earth and appears out of control. HMG has been soft-soaping the public for years about the real cost of the independent deterrent and we get today’ kind of supposedly reassuring but essentially dishonest spin from the MOD.
Osborne buried the nuclear programme in the defence budget because it is just too costly for the Treasury to meet without cutting all the other departments’ budgets.
There are no easy answers. Defence spending needs to rise to 3% of GDP minimum just to accommodate this monster nuclear programme. And time HMG was honest with the public about the real costs of the independent deterrent.
Of course they won’t do that, public support for it would drop like a stone.
The author of the FT article relies almost exclusively on figures sourced from quasi CND organizations and carefully cherry picked & anonymous quotes from “key insiders”. As such, not to be relied on for a complete impartial view.
The author himself has zero education & experience in defence matters.
That’s as maybe/maybe not. Point is the article rathet refects the converns expressed by the public Accounts Cttee and Defence Select Cttee but amplifies, in a way they cannot, the real-world costs of the programme.
It is widely known that the costs are becoming humongous, hence two recent large tranches of money provided for nuclear. Are you really saying that the two thinktanks’ figures for the real cost of the programme are just made-up numbers by some malignant bunch of CND members? In the Financial Times??!
I’m afraid that comes over as an MOD or civil servant type blame transfer story. It is understood that HMG desperately does not want the real scale of the nuclear costs to be divulged, otherwise there would be some serious questions asked in the House and by the general public.
I wait with interest to see if SoS Shapps promptly refutes the FT report, it will be r3veal8ng.
“That may be/or not” ??????
The writer made those financial figures the foundation for his whole article and seeing that they have been produced by two anti-nuclear organizations (neither of which are front line) that provide no explanation of how they were calculated, there’s is every reason to doubt the validly of the whole piece.